← All Phrases

“Section 139(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(1)7,818 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Judgments citing Section 139(1)

Smita Virendra Lodha, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1980/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Vmk Image, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1974/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1974/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

facts of the case are that the assessee for the year under consideration has not filed return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Based on the information available with the Income Tax Department that the assessee has purchased an immovable property amounting to Rs.2

Sri City Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.807/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sri City Private Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Chennai Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Aajcs8887M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80I

ITA No 807 of 2024 Sri City Private Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Ratan Lal Bhura, Bhutan vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1719/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

rule (9) of rule 128 of the Income- tax rules, 1962 before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) the Income-tax Act, 1961 and also mandates that filing of Form No. 67 shall precede the filing of the return. Therefore

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Neemuch vs. The PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Rajesh Chaudhary, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2032/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Rajesh Dcit, Central Chaudhary, 147-148, Circle-31, New Delhi K C Road, Faridabad, Vs. Haryana-110019 Pan No Afspc1241A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271D

Assessment Year 2017-18. Page1 2. The facts of the case are that appellant/assessee filed original return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 13.03.2018 declaring nil income and claiming loss of Rs. 5,03,355/- . Search under Section

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4326/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

case. There is no dispute that a return ITAs No.4234, 4235, 4325 & 4326/ Mum/2005 8 of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, from the perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, as noted above, we find that there ... relevant assessment year i.e. 1997-98. There is also no dispute that a return of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, we are of the considered view that our conclusion/findings as rendered in assessee’s appeal for the assessment year

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4325/MUM/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

case. There is no dispute that a return ITAs No.4234, 4235, 4325 & 4326/ Mum/2005 8 of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, from the perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, as noted above, we find that there ... relevant assessment year i.e. 1997-98. There is also no dispute that a return of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, we are of the considered view that our conclusion/findings as rendered in assessee’s appeal for the assessment year

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4235/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

case. There is no dispute that a return ITAs No.4234, 4235, 4325 & 4326/ Mum/2005 8 of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, from the perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, as noted above, we find that there ... relevant assessment year i.e. 1997-98. There is also no dispute that a return of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, we are of the considered view that our conclusion/findings as rendered in assessee’s appeal for the assessment year

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4234/MUM/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

case. There is no dispute that a return ITAs No.4234, 4235, 4325 & 4326/ Mum/2005 8 of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, from the perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, as noted above, we find that there ... relevant assessment year i.e. 1997-98. There is also no dispute that a return of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, we are of the considered view that our conclusion/findings as rendered in assessee’s appeal for the assessment year

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 885/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

business of manufacturing and sale of drugs and pharmaceuticals filed its return of income for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 884/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

business of manufacturing and sale of drugs and pharmaceuticals filed its return of income for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. Raghu Management Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1294/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Yojana Suresh Bhoir, Thane vs. CPC, Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3624/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32

Trucks only under the name and style of M/s Ketan Transport. The Appellant has filed Income Tax return in ITR- 3 under section 139(1) on 6th December 2021 along with Income & Expenditure A/c and Balance Sheet and computation of Income. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1

Shree Shiv Sahyadri Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(3) Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1788/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shree Shiv Sahyadri Nagari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pathanstha S Ward-7(3), Pune. Maryadit, Sai Park Road, Dighi, Pune – 411015. Pan: Aaeas1417N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak Sasar – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shabana Parveen – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.06.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.15,60,115/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(v)Section 2Section 250Section 80ISection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee for deduction u/sec.80P of the Act, on account that Return of Income was not filed within due date mentioned in the section 139(1) of the Act. Assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appeal was allotted to ld.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Gurugram ... deduction claimed by assessee u/sec.80P of the Act, on account of not filing the Return of Income within the time mentioned under section 139(1) of the Act. The ld.AR read out relevant section 143(1) of the Act. Ld.AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws :  Chirakkal

Ashabai Shriram Patil, Raver vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.165/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Ashabai Shriram Patil, V The Deputy Commissioner Shriram Agro Plast, S Of Income Tax, Gat No.1173, Pal Road Circle-1, Jalgaon. Raver, Jalgaon – 425508. Pan: Abdpp3516G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shabana Parveen – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.11.2023 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.25,44,500/- ,Treating As Unexplained Credits U/S 68 Of The I T Act & Taxing It U/S 115Bbe Of The I T Act Even Though All The Sales Are Duly Supported. The Aforesaid Additions Being Arbitrary, Perverse, Devoid Of Merits & Patently Illegal The Same May Please Be Deleted. 2. The Appellate Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Alter, Revise, Substitute Delete Any Or All Ground Of The Appeal If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Brief Facts Of The Case : 2. The Assessee E-Filed Return Of Income For A.Y.2017-18 On 31.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,56,290/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.5,57,715/-. Assessee Is A Proprietor Of Shriram Agro Plast Industries Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing, Trading In Drip Irrigation Systems, Plastic Products & Reprocessing Of Old Lateral Tubes.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

heard both the parties and perused the records. It is an admitted fact that assessee had filed Return of Income for A.Y.2017-18 under section 139(1) of the Act, similarly for earlier years also assessee had filed return of income within the time. Ld.CIT(A) had produced the chart showing

Mavoor Service Co-Op Bankltd, Mavoor vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode

ITA 27/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 8O

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Malanadu Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Developement Bank Ltd, Nedumangad vs. ITO, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 195/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Premjith Nagendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Kottayam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

Appeal is allowed

ITA 146/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

M/S. Punalur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Kollam

ITA 785/COCH/2023[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhalong With Sa.No.178/Coch/2023 – Assessment Year 2018-2019 Punalur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Office Building V. The Income Tax Officer Punalur Post Ward 2 Kollam – 691 305. Kollam. Pan : Aagas6534C. (Appellant/Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant/Applicant By : Sri.Santhosh P.Abraham Respondent By : Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11. 2024 Order Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal Ita.No. 785/Coch/2023 (Along With Its Stay Application Sa.No.178/Coch/2023 Therein) For Assessment 2018-2019 Arise Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/Nfac Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053606989(1) Dated 08.06.2023 In Proceedings U/S.143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2

For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH